Appeal No. 1998-0187
Application No. 08/247,518
the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one of
ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have been expected
to draw therefrom. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ
507, 510 (CCPA 1966); and In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159
USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
The examiner describes each of Matsuhisa and Sterzel as
teaching a process of making a ceramic article of complicated
shape by injection molding a mixture of ceramic material and a
binder. Sims and Kliegel are cited merely to show cups having
a body and a handle. The examiner also asserts that it was
well known in the art prior to the appellant’s invention to
make cups with handles using ceramic material and a binder, an
assertion that appellant has not challenged. It is the
examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to form a
cup of the shape taught by Sims or Kliegel of ceramic material
and a binder using the process of either Matsuhisa or Sterzel.
See Answer, p. 5.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007